Living Persons Policy

Articles about Living People, and mentions of Living People within other articles, should be treated with the utmost care. If you are not prepared to read this policy, and be thorough and careful in your edits, then do not attempt to include information about Living People in your edits.

(Below is adapted from Wikipedia's equivalent policy)

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

The Wiki must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Person Articles ("PAs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. This Wiki not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a PA, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Writing style

Tone

PAs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

Balance

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

The idea that every Wiki article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to PAs. Given their potential impact on subjects' lives, PAs must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Attack pages

Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.

Reliable sources

Challenged or likely to be challenged

The Wiki's sourcing policy (via its reference to Wikipedia's sourcing policy), Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a PA or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Avoid misuse of primary sources

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Self-published sources

Avoid self-published sources

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

Using the subject as a self-published source

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Avoid gossip and feedback loops

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wiki article is picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wiki article to support the original edit.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see: Wiki Content Policies#No Original Research);
3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the PA (see: Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or
4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.

Note that what counts as exempt under PA can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter to administrators.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear PA violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page [Not yet implemented, using the Discord for now].

Further reading, External links, and See also

External links about living persons, whether in PAs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of PAs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a PA may be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of that PA with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the external links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

"See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to the Wiki's policy of no original research.

Presumption in favor of privacy

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, PAs should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Public figures

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and PAs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

[Editor's note: this example is fine for now as it illustrates the point, but can be replaced for a directly relevant one later down the line]

If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.

People who are relatively unknown

Wiki articles may contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources

This is an area where the Wiki's policy substantially deviates from Wikipedia's policy. Personal details of Living Persons, aside from their names, and their professional roles, are NOT relevant to the Wiki. This includes their locations, age, marital status, familial relations, hobbies, interests, and any other material not relating to the topic of consumer protection.

The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.

If you see inappropriate personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a PA or anywhere on the Wiki, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team [just contact an admin for now, until an oversight team is established] so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. To reduce the chances of triggering the Streisand effect, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting Oversight.

Privacy of names

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

Deadnaming of transgender people

Sometimes vandals come to Wikis to intentionally deadname transgender people in violation of our guidelines. In such cases, you should revert the change as we treat it as a privacy interest and contact an administrator willing to handle the redaction of the deadname by revision deletions to redact it from the edit logs as a PA violation.

If a particular PA article is repeatedly vandalized, one can request an increase of the page protections by an admin.

Use in continued disputes

Articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. The Wiki, however, is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Misusing Wikis to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of PA articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to the Wiki itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's PA article or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a PA article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

Applicability

PA applies to all material about living persons anywhere on the Wiki, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.

Non-article space

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about the subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The PA policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what the Wiki is not. However, minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages. Although this policy applies to posts about Wiki users in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks.

Usernames

Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements or material about living persons should be immediately blocked and suppressed from all revisions and logs. This includes usernames that disclose any kind of non-public, private, or personally identifiable information about living persons, regardless of the legitimacy of the information and whether or not the information is correct. Requests for removing such usernames from logs should be reported to the Oversight team for evaluation.

Images

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited.

There is clear consensus against using AI-generated images to depict subjects of PAs. Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement or where an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) are subject to case-by-case consensus. Images of living persons that have been created by Wiki users or others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia's Image use policy.

Recently dead or probably dead

Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Even without confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore covered by this policy.

Legal persons and groups

This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the PA policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a PA problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

Relationship between the subject, the article, and the Wiki

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article

Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Leniancy should be shown to PA subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.

Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When a logged-out editor blanks all or part of a PA, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005, and we accept it for this Wiki:

Wiki:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of the Wiki will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves, there is a temptation—especially if apparently wrong or strongly negative information is included in such an article—to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity for the new user. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap, rather than see this phenomenon as a new editor mistake.

Dealing with articles about yourself

The Wiki has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} on your user talk page. You may also contact an admin with an explanation of your concern, and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced.

If you are an article subject and you find the article about you contains your personal information or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team [or any admin] so that they can evaluate the issue and possibly remove it from the page history.

Please bear in mind that this Wiki is almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite or demanding behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective.

Legal issues

Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wiki page, whether in a PA or elsewhere, may contact [INSERT POINT OF CONTACT HERE]. Please e-mail [INSERT POINT OF CONTACT HERE] with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.

As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article.

Role of administrators

Page protection and blocks

Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear PA violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases, they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator.

Contentious topics

"All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic. In this area, the Wiki's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.

Deletion

Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking

Material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested.

Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with our policies.

Relatively unknown subjects

Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed."

Restoration

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith PA objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with the Wiki's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of an administrator deleting a complete article, wherever possible such disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article.